The legal argument over the validity of tire chalking is whether the parking enforcement technique is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
thing or to obtain information.” This was the key question reviewed by the court.
The Ruling
ISTOCK / GAWRILOFF
The court found that “despite the low-tech nature of the investigative technique, the chalk marks clearly provided information” to the parking enforcement officer. The chalk marks serve to identify the vehicles and when they parked. The court concluded that a “search” does likely occur when a tire is chalked. However, the analysis must also resolve whether the search is reasonable. As a matter of law, the search of an automobile is far less intrusive than the search of a person or building because cars exist on public streets in plain view to the public. Ultimately, the court concluded that because of the minor nature of the physical intrusion of tire chalking and the government’s undeniable authority to enforce parking meter time limits, even if tire chalking could be considered a search, it was reasonable. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed in September 2017. However, this was not the end of the case. The ticket recipient appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appellate court disagreed with the trial court and found that the lower court applied the wrong legal standard to its decision and sent the case back for further proceedings. It was at this point that the media learned about the case and that the wrong conclusion—that tire chalking is unconstitutional—went viral. The media got it so wrong that the appellate court issued an amended opinion with the following additional language: “Taking the allegations in the complaint as true, we hold that chalking is a search under the Fourth Amendment, specifically under the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones. This does not mean, however, that chalking violates the Fourth Amendment. Rather, we hold, based on the pleading stage of this litigation, that two exceptions to the warrant requirement—the ‘community caretaking’ exception and the motor-vehicle exception—do not apply here. Our holding extends no further than this.”
The court did not decide that tire chalking is unconstitutional. The court disagreed with a very specific legal argument and revived the case for additional analysis. As of December 2019, the case is ongoing with no further decisions. Go forth and chalk tires! ◆ MICHAEL J. ASH, Esq., CRE, is partner with Carlin & Ward. He can be reached at michael.ash@ carlinward.com.
Welcomes
to the Southland Family
PARKING-MOBILITY.ORG / FEBRUARY 2020 / PARKING & MOBILITY 9